The great whore riding the beast in the book of Revelation mentioned here
-is in some way a reference to the Internet.
I thought what if the 'mother of harlots and abominations' referred to how the Internet is corrupting women and men respectively. Harlot is hopefully self-explanatory.
I like this theory, even if it is at odds with my reading. I believe that the Whore of Babylon is characterized as such to give us an idea of the character of our enemies. Note that it was written before the Talmud was committed to written form. We see that the Whore of Babylon and the Synagogue of Satan are both preached against, and each of these characterizations is important to understand our enemies. Only one religion meets in synagogues. (Greek synagogue means "the coming together of leaders", very prideful and unacceptable to those who are meek.) Only one religion is constructed around whoredom (idolatry) to the ruling God-denying government (Babylon). (Indeed, the "square script" "Hebrew" alphabet of the Zionist-occupied state in Palestine is a Babylonian derivative; David and Solomon wrote Hebrew in an alphabet very near to Phoenician.)
I think that when it all pans out, we'll see that there were MANY interpretations that were concurrently correct, each in its own way. We see this about fulfillment of prophecy in the Old Testament.
The thing is, when you go way back to when the word 'abomination' is first used (Genesis 43:32) it is used in a way that means 'something you distance yourself from or put away' - which fits the idea of the Internet turning men into shut-ins.
So I had that idea for a while, but then I discovered troons and, well, 'abominations' seems to fit perfectly now.
Yeah, the Hebrew is roughly "toebah" and I've read speculation that it is cognate with the term we get "taboo" from, which suggests that it represents something put aside culturally for religious purposes, in the same way that the early church was told in Acts to avoid foods sacrificed to idols.
Christ is the Logos. Sharing logos (reasoned discussion; sensible talk) with our brothers, the lost, and the unsaved is ALWAYS licit for those in Christ, and the practice of Christian "love covers a multitude of sins". I'd be concerned about over-stating your hypothesis, but you aren't, you're saying: "Here's a neat reading. What do you think, friends?" Thus, I'd say that your use of Internet here is lawful and serves as a bit of a counterexample to your hypothesis... but all generalizations are false, and your speech might be the exception that proves the rule, so to speak.
Anyone speculating about Revelation saying that "it's in the past bro" shows zero familiarity with the book, where Jesus returns to Earth to rule for a thousand years with the resurrected bodies of His martyrs, then finally ends Satan and death, and humanity transitions into the era of the City of God, where the evil are condemned to the lake of fire, the saved but reprobate are denied access to the City, and Christ's greatest servants reside in His House. Obviously, the book straddles past and future. The question is exactly where that dividing line is positioned.
I used to watch Rabbi Alexstein Jonesberg and would actually take him seriously.
I've heard that AJ was the kiked-up version of Bill Cooper, but I'm not a student of Cooper.